Are There Any Non-Liberal Conservation Groups?

Thanks for the info guys, there is hope out there. I just bought my '04 Prius used and I love it. While politically I lean Republican, I believe in recycling and being environmentally RESPONSIBLE. The reason I bought my prius was it was a wise and responsible move. I got the best of both worlds, I traded in my '02 Saturn compact for a smaller exterior vehicle and got a larger interior vehicle that gets better mileage. Plus I love all the toys and so does my husband. This makes up for our '69 Chevy Camaro that will pass everything on the road except the gas station. (Thus the reason it gets driven once or twice a year.)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Devil's Advocate\";p=\"88419)</div>

Just wanted to chirp in and clarify this point. I don't know the exact reasons given by the Coastal Commission, but the main envrionmental reason for opposing De-Sal plants is because one of the byproducts of the plants is hyper-saturated brine (salt water). Most palnts simply dump this brine back into the ocean at some point which causes tremendous envrionmental harm.

Anyways, carry-on.

 

Answering the subject line: Not very many. Traditional conservative groups have largely been hijacked by reactionaries, plutocrats, and religious fanatics. Few of these are interested in conservation: they consider it either irrelevant, or an obstacle to their goals. We need a new political ethos that evaluates problems and solutions on their own merits, without regard to ideological baggage.

 

I think liberal labels on environmental groups is accurate, because a good many of those groups are not in the business of improving the environment. They're in the POWER business. When any enviromental group tells the Democratic Party to "jump", it jumps. Republicans usually step back and attempt to assess the overall impact on us. That's why the Democratic Party is associated with the environment; but it's a myth. That's why Bush, over the objections of the Democrats, rejected the Kyoto Treaty - it was based on bad science and would have placed our economy at a severe disadvantage...

 

in fact, it's the hallmark of the bush administration that it's willing...even eager to side with the business interests at the expense of the environment. recent examples include:

1) the aggressive push to start oil drilling in the previously protected ANWR
2) the raising of fed. standards for levels of arsenic in drinking water
3) the multiple refusals to raise CAFE minimum MPG standards
4) up to $150,000 tax break for the purchase of SUV's over 6000 lbs.
5) the refusal to participate in the kyoto accords
6) opening of protected forests to logging & commercial development
7) limiting financial liability for companies that have environmental accidents

in short, he's the worst environmental president in recent memory. non-partisan environmental organizations across the country are sounding the alarm. it's not simply a matter of speculation anymore. it's all there in the presidential record and it condemns him for the corporate shill that he is.

personally, i think the planet needs more ecologically aware republicans. concern for the planet is not (and should not be perceived to be) the exclusive domain of democrats. it's a national issue. it's a global issue. it effects us all.

that being said, i'd love to see more republican senators grow some spine and start challenging the president on his policies before the air turns to tar and we're all wearing SPF 250.

 

Konakahuna, (1)I would prefer to have the U.S. monitor the safe drilling than ship the oil half way around the world on tin buckets masquerading as oil tankers - go ANWAR; (2)He didn't raise the standards; he reversed a Clinton decision that would have crippled water supplies. Arsenic is found naturally. It's one of the basic elements. You ingest it every day;(3) The marketplace will do a very efficient job of reducing CAFE standards;(4) I don't know anything about SUV tax breaks;(5) The Kyoto Accord is a United Nations boondoggle - needn't say anything more;(6) The Lumber interests are much more adept at keeping our forests in good shape than enviromentalists - witness the horrible fires in Calif. and Ariz.(7) Why destroy a company financially because of an accident?? One of the most rational, objective enviromental groups is the National Rifle Assoc...It is deeply involved in environmental efforts and education. I don't own a gun, but I'm a proud member of the NRA. Republicans are environmentalists. They believe that we can preserve the environment without crippling the country.

 

Go Emilyjohn!

The tax i"incentive" meant for working familys and farmers has since been done away with, way to go and cripple the working man (granted urban YUPPIES did take advantage of the credit, it doesn't mean it was inherently wrong)

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Emilyjohn\";p=\"90926)</div>

How can you argue that the market will take care of CAFE and then claim ignorance on a large SUV tax break which totally distorts the market?

The market would take care of things if we let it. How about removing the SUV tax credit completely and charge the cost of the Iraq war directly as a $1.00/gallon tax on gasoline. The market certainly will begin to take care of our fuel thirst and help eliminate some of the oil imports. The tax would also help with the sham budgeting of the administration - tax breaks for current voters and big increases to everyone later (borrowed money + interest).

 

emily.. i'm stunned.

1) the amount of oil gained from ANWR drilling will have no significant impact on reducing our dependence on foreign oil. sad, but true. even the most rosy estimates say 2-4% and it'll take the better part of a decade to get it out of the ground.

2) Bush didn't raise CAFE standard. he was asked to...twice. and twice he refused at the behest of the domestic automakers who worried their gas-guzzling, high-profit SUV's might be threatened. overall mas mileage for domestic cars has actually decreased in the last decade...despite all the technology available to produce more efficient designs. the original model T ford gets better gas mileage than most modern SUV's (24mpg). raising CAFE standards even a few MPG would save more oil than we'd get from the ANWR. enough to reduce or eliminate middle eastern oil imports...yet he refuses.


3) trace amounts of arsenic are found in water, that's true. but it's also a lethal substance in higher doses. more PPM of a lethal substance is always bad, especially for children.water contains iron too...but i don't want to drink rusty water. this should be obvious.

4) the tax break was for vehicles up to 6000 lbs and up to $150,000. it's a matter of presidential record.

5) global warming is changing the weather patterns of the planet. warmer oceans mean more violent storms, hotter summers and heavier snow patterns. the kyoto accords called for a dramatic clamp-down on the main producers of ozone which contribute to global warming. bush didn't want it because it would have cost businesses to modernize to meet the stricter standards for ozone pollution. if the kyoto accords is nothing but a UN boondoggle, where is his more sensible plan to cut ozone emissions?


6) a lumber company makes money by chopping trees down, not by leaving them standing. it's true that some thinning is required to keep a forest healthy, but to suggest that loggers should be in charge of national forestry is patently absurd. as a former resident of both california and southern arizona i've seen wildfires before. you know why they start? because people are stupid. they don't put out a campfire, or they toss a cigarette butt. dry, uncleared brush +spark +wind = wildfire. a thinned forest won't prevent this. the only prevention is adequate manpower and merciless fines for people who are unsafe in their use of fire.


the proof of any administration is in the choices they make. you say republicans are environmentalists. i say, where's the beef?

 

Konakahuna, with all due respect, I'm stunned...you must have faith in technology or you wouldn't be driving a Prius. Technology can also ameliorate the dangers of drilling for oil, on land or offshore. We can't be governed by fear of failure. CAFE standards in the not too distant future will be mute. Toyota is paving the way for future oil conservation, and you are an important part of that thru your prius - another word for it is capitalism. The standard for Arsenic found in pure water supplies is 50ppm. Clinton wanted to reduce it to 5ppm, prohibitive in cost and rarely found even in the purest water. Kyoto dealt primarily with CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere and offered no assurances of lowering those concentrations over the next 100 years. The U.N., you know, the same bunch that supervised the Oil-for-Food scam would oversee this phony accord. Now CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but a far more abundant greenhouse gas is water vapor and ice crystals. So what does that say for hydrogen power? Besides, I understand that there's evidence that the polar caps on Mars have melted some. You don't suppose that our "pollution" has reached Mars. I don't want our forests run by bureaucrats. I don't want our forests run by the same people who are running the Post Office and Amtrak into the grave. The only thing environmentally that the Democrats have done is force us to depend on coal and oil and they've also gotten rid of Joe Camel. So, I ask you, where's the beef?

 

emily, you drive a prius...so i know you're concerned about the environment, as am i. i guess we just have to disagree about practically everything else.

you say a texas oil man from a family whose fortune was made based in petroleum is the one to lead us away from the grip of his friends and business-associates in saudi arabia towards a greener, oil-free future. okay.

you think de-regulation and privatization of social services will be more efficient than a bloated bureaucracy despite the lessons of enron and worldcomm. okay.

you thnk the republican party in general and the NRA in specific have been good stewards of the earth and will have a better record than the ones who came before them.

i can only pray you're right on all counts...because if you're not, we're all in for a long-ugly ride and it will be our children who will pay the price for our lack of vision.

 

Konakahuna, you have the last word. Well said by you! I enjoyed our little debate. I have an admission. We don't drive a Prius; we're waiting for delivery of white/#6 package. But, because of people like you, this is a super website. We look forward to your postings in the near future! Thanks again for the debate.

 

....And there you have it folks - intelligent discourse - something our politicos seem unable to do any more.

Congratulations to you both.

 

thanks, emily.

i think it was voltaire who once said, "i may not agree with what you say, but i'll defend to the death your right to say it". as long as we, as a nation, can embrace that truth...we'll always have at least one thing in common.

best of luck on acquiring your prius. it's a terrific car and while individually, it only makes a small difference....as part of a larger growing awareness of the need for change, it's great to know you're part of something greater.

 

The reason given by the California Coastal Commission for not allowing De-Sal Plants - "The production of freshwater will allow the construction of more housing units causing more people to move to (now get this next part) the inland empire" For those of you in Rio Lindo the Inland Empire or abbreviated the IE is the large flat area in the center of California that runs north and south through most of the state and really begins about 50 miles from the ocean. Needless to say both the reason, potential population growth, and the location of that growth are completely out of the purview of the Costal Commission. Given their quasi-judicial/legislative authority though it is very difficult to combat them. Especially when NO ONE in the CA legislature will even touch them since then they will be decried as some anti-environmental crazy person who wants to starve old people and club spotted owls!

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(majordude\";p=\"88512)</div>

Gee, I see Prii on a daily basis, but no left leaning bumper stickers on them. "W" in dark blue, even an NRA sticker (or maybe USMC, which is likely the most seen sticker after the "W" one around this city, which is full of Rocket Scientists. Two of my next door neighbors are MIT graduates.

 

There is something to be said for polite political discussion but there is also a lot more to be said for the ignorance of the apologists of the people on the right for this admiistration's poor record of environmentally catastrophic decisions.

Until people like emilyjohn stop believing the spin that is constantly spewed by the Bush Admin and start expecting more from their own party we will forever be stuck in this constant state of "decied-for-yourself-despite the facts" scenario.

Democrats and Liberals will always criticize Democrats and Republicans alike and hold them to the same set of standards. But Republicans never seem to see any wrong in the decisions of their party despite the mounds of evidence staring them in the face.

I'll never understand that. Their short term victories only hurt their own children and grandchildren.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(vistagrande\";p=\"89552)</div>

If I am reading the context of your post correctly, you meant to say you can't be a Bush supporter and an Environmentalist.

I am a strong Bush supporter and I am still a strong Environmentalist. While my beliefs about being a good steward of the environment are strong, my beliefs about being a nation with certain moral guidelines are even stronger. It is possible to be a supporter for someone without agreeing with every one of their policies (whether it be environmental or fiscal). In fact, I would doubt that any candidate I would agree on everything with them.

By the way, this is seeming to deteriorate into the usual us vs. them talk. Not all Republicans are unable to see their errors and neither are all Democrats able to see when they make a mistake. Remember that there are always more differences within groups than between groups.

 

Vistagrande, I might agree with you, except for one thing: you can't name a single piece of legislation, on the environment or anything else, that the Democrats have introduced in the last 15 or 20 years in Washington. Dems have plenty of issues; never a solution. You and I may agree or disagree on the solutions raised on the other side of the aisle, but that's what this country is all about and what keeps forums like this one from running out of gas.